Rohrabacher (R-CA) just let the (LIHOP) cat out of the bag

[chookie]

Just heard this on CHH 2:20PM ish.

I've always wondered what "no more swatting flies" was a code word for, although I had my suspicions

While commenting on NeoCondi's "magnificent" performance today, Rohrabacher (R-CA) said that Bush did not wish to provide a piddling tit for tat response to terror attacks on the US, but instead pre-Sept 11 was working on a major plan to eliminate terrorism completely. This plan consisted on "taking out "a" Middle Eastern dictator (SH) and replacing him with a democracy. Establishing a democracy in Iraq would provide an "alternative" to the kind of state that Al Qaeda was promulgating." (I paraphrase what Rohrabacher said.)

Asked why Bush was not more public about how he was pursuing this agenda, Rohrabacher replied that sometimes it takes a cataclysmic event like 9/11 to revolutionize the approach to policy.

Does that smell like LIHOP to you? Does that sound like "Reichstag Fire" to you? It does to me, I am afraid.

I believe that Bush came into office with an ambitious plan to overthrown the Arab states of the Middle East, as PNAC had been pushing for for years. This was the "no more swatting flies" plan -- he was already planning the "generational conflict" that he began to speak about as a response to Sept 11. He just had to wait for *something* to happen to get the decent American people, who would have been utterly appalled by such an idea, behind him. He did this in two stages: 1) Allow Israel/Palestine to completely disintegrate into violence in the spring and summer of 2001 and 2) ignore "chatter" of 2001 that something very very big was being planned inside the US soon. I will however allow that he probably did not think the attack on Sept 11 2001 would be as successful as it was -- that I give him enough credit for -- but I know from interviews with these bastards in the days following the attacks, people like Perle and Wolfowitz and Woolsey were licking their chops about they were going to do in response to this.... Immediately after the attacks here, inferences were made that the US finally realized that it was in exactly the same position as Israel, and that we were fighting a common enemy -- and the further inference was that a final heavy blow against terrorists was the measure that needed to be taken.

Yeah, I know NeoCondi is just so much smarter than me :eyes:, but if I had on my desk what she was given, I would have bashed heads together at the CIA/FBI, alerted the public to high danger, and pretty much figured out that even in the absence of "specific dates and times" that NYC and DC were the likely targets, particularly (DUH) as the WTC had been a target back in 1993 and was considered unfinished business by Al Qaeda.

Anyway -- the LIHOP inference I make here is my opinion. However, it seems to be the fact that Bush *entered* the WH not with a "humble foreign policy", but with an ambitious plan to completely redraw the Middle East by use of US military force, to topple their government and replace them with "democracies", and that this was his "ultimate" solution for eradicating terrorism.

Just as further "insurgency" seems to be the result of the American occupation of Iraq and its experiment with establishing democracy there, with each horrific episode of violence, Bush assures us that everything is going just great, that we have taken the battle to the perpetrators. Again, this is just another code word that, in my opinion, means that he *intends* for violence to ignite throughout the entire Middle East, and for there to be a drastic military response. I think "generation challenge" he speaks of post-Sept 11 is a code word for "WWIII." IS THIS WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT?

Clearly, Bush and his gang truly believe that an all-out war in the Middle East is the ultimate solution for terrorism. Clearly, his followers support him in this effort. I have given it a great deal of thought, and I do not agree. I maintain my position that taking the response to Iraq only made the whole mess much worse. I think instead of "swatting flies", I believe the "flies" are going to swarm like the plagues of the Bible. I do not believe that an all-out war in the Middle East -- basically against the Muslim world, and increasingly with the opposition from our former allies like "old Europe" aka The Civilized World -- can solve the terror threat. That it will, I believe, is wishful thinking on the part of Bush the Stooge and his Neoconservative and Military/Industrial masters, and that it is a faith-based policy, more based on the Book of Revelation than rational conduct.

I think Bush is crazed as well -- I think he *wants* to go down in history as the leader of a major offensive like this, and believes the flattery of his controllers that he is a Man of Destiny.

Anyway -- it's an election year. The American People have to give serious thought to whether they support Bush's major plan to conquer the Middle East, which he calls by the name of "The War on Terror, " although we know that that name means something very different to the majority of people in this country.

[xultar]

1. Help, I'm dumb, LIHOP? n/t

[Blue_Tires]

2. let it happen on purpose n/t

[LittleApple81]

3. Let It Happen on Purpose. n/t

[xultar]

52. Thanks Y'All n/t

[SheepyMcSheepster]

4. here ya go.

LIHOP=let it happen on purpose
MIHOP=made it happen on purpose

[ET Awful]

6. Let It Happen On Purpose - 9/11 n/t

[RobertSeattle]

We need a DU dictionary..

LIHOP - let it happen on purpose. Scenario where Bush Administration knew 9/11 was going to happen, but let it, so there other objectives could be pushed like the invasion of Iraq.

[LittleApple81]

9. Somebody gave me the address of such a thing way back when I got on DU.

Anybody knows where it is? I would be glad to give the address to newbies whenever I can. (my computer died a short time after that so I don't have the address anymore).

[immoderate]

20. The dictionary...

http://dug.seattleactivist.org

[RobertSeattle]

21. Thanks - this has been bookmarked!

[LittleApple81]

23. Thanks. Bookmarked. n/t

[BOSSHOG]

11. Let it happen on purpose - and thanks rohrabacher

BUT, the war was to be fought against a weak country with lots of oil. bush needed a reason to attack IRAQ to fulfill the requirements put upon him by the cheney energy task force. 9-11 was so convenient. Get the oil fields, get big contracts for halliburton, obfuscate the issue.

Iraq was weak (an easy target and bush knew it) while continuing to babble on about WMD.

Fighting terrorism was a necessary fear to inflict into the hearts of Americans and bush knew it, regardless that the target was the wrong one (got the oil anyway)

and another piece of the puzzle provided today by useless idiot, rohrabacher. But please, never lose sight of the ultimate truth, its all clintons fault.

[chookie]

17. Definitions:

"LIHOP" -- "Let it Happen on Purpose"
Refers to the theory that the Bush administration had a pretty good idea that American was going to be attacked by Al Qaeda, but took no measures to stop it, as they saw it as providing an opening to their original ambitions to invade Iraq, etc

"MIHOP" -- "Made it Happen on Purpose"
Refers to the theory that the Bush administration or some connected to them actively participated in the planning and execution of the attacks on America, which it saw as providing a pretext to beginning to carry out their ambitious plans to remake the Middle East, and lots of other stuff domestically as well (surveillance of US citizens, easy detainments, suppression of dissents, huge contracts for M/I complex, etc etc etc)

[CaptainClark23]

38. 1000+ posts and asking what LIHOP is?

Wow, what sub-sub-forum have you been hanging out in for the past couple of years?

Welcome to the light of day, so to speak...(am a MIHOPer myself)

[xultar]

54. I like da lounge! n/t

[Trajan]

66. LMFAO ....

Oh ... and Clark for President threads ....

[codegreen]

5. also...

the Bush team spent alot of time making a new war-on-terror foreign policy that just happened to be ready to implement right around 9/14

i think there is plenty of evidence that they did LIHOP, and it all fits perfectly

i mean, they keep talking about how they wanted to make a new strategy, that that was their focus, and that is what they were doing for all those months instead of, say, going after domestic terror cells.

i wonder why.

[BOSSHOG]

12. The answer can be found in post 11

[arcane1]

7. you know what is really sad? If LIHOP finally became mainstream

the Coulters and Hannitys of the world would be talking about how damned good an idea that was, and the freeps would parrot that. :puke:

[Minstrel Boy]

14. That may be what Rohrabacher is doing here.

I doubt he's in a loop that could let anything out of the bag. But he seems to be making a peace of sorts with the implications of 9/11 having been allowed to happen intentionally.

[arcane1]

19. the "unifying event, like a new Pearl Harbor"

and all the freeps will say we hate America, because we were against such an insane notion...

don't be surprised if it comes to that

[chookie]

37. Unfortunately, I think we're there already

Anyone who has dared to raise the slightest objection over even minor details of the execution of Bush's "War on Terror" is routinely accused of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, of emboldening them to strike the US again and again.

The freeps long ago came out and said that they consider "liberals" (which seems to mean, these days, the non-insane) The Enemy, even the equivalent of enemies like Al Qaeda.

There is the extremist political element, and they have a weird alliance with the extremist religious element, who seem to believe that God withdrew his shield of protection on Sept 11 because of homosexuality, feminism, and the ACLU

It's all pretty overheated stuff -- and unfortunately, the Bushistas only fan the flames, as they *need* these thugs to keep their agenda on track. I think they will risk violence against Americans by other Americans, in order to intimidate those who oppose them.

They certainly feel a lot of anger against "us" (i.e. the non-insane) and I suspect that it's not just going to disappear some day. Many of us are reminded of the Brown Shirts. War is no longer seen as the source of miserable suffering and chaos, but rather as a beautiful purifying flame of blood sacrifice.

Unless we can manage to effectively discredit these people, things are going to get a lot worse all over. I don't think most Americans can imagine just how bad it can get....

[chookie]

27. The shills of the administration are getting bolder

Yes, Rohrabacher is a whore for Bush. He performed as such.

But I think as the war in Iraq continues to get worse, they have to come up with something to say that spells out exactly why its GREAT that the war in Iraq is going so badly, and that that was Bush's intention all along.

The "look at all the nice things happening in Iraq that don't make the news" has not been a successful campaign to get the American people behind it. Nice to see clean kiddies in schoolrooms learning about democracy, but not sure it I want our Marines dying for this, particularly when kiddies in the US are not getting the educational resources *they* need.

I think they were all in on this. The PNAC plan was no secret, and a lot of people in the spotlight today signed off on it. There may have been an "inner loop" -- but it certainly had a lot of support publically by neocons and their sympathesizers.

Rohrabacher just came out and said it -- that the invasion of Iraq was part of the plan that was underway WELL before Sept 11 (as we all here at DU knew all along anyway) -- but that this invasion was part of His Chimperial Highnesses Major Plan to remake the Middle East into a region supportive of Americans interests by use of military force.

This is what "no more swatting flies" meant.

If Richard Clarke was "out of the loop" as Cheney says -- I bet *this* was the loop he was out of -- the Major PNAC Program Planning Team -- which, I suspect, Cheney headed, and of which Wolfowitz and Perle designed.

No -- Richard Clarke wanted to "swat flies" -- he wasn't "thinking big" and outside the box like the Grown Ups who apparently excluded him from their meetings.

I think that Cheney, Bush and Wolfowitz and Perle and probably Rummy WANTED to get people like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke on board to carry out their Major Plan, but these guys just "didn't get it."

People have to decide now if honest men and pragmatists were on the right track, and that perhaps that the very nature of terrorism is "swatting flies" -- or if ideologues who believe that terrorism can be utterly eradicated if the current regimes of the Middle East are toppled and remade to be supportive of American and Israeli interests.

[Old and In the Way]

33. Of course Cheney was planning it.

The "secret energy meetings" were a pretext to divvy up Iraq after we invaded. PNAC established the motive and all we are really quibbling about was, is it LIHOP or MIHOP?

Rohrbacker is doing the "limited hangout" thing to see how the public accepts this. Amazing that we've been on this since 10/01 and the general public is just getting exposed to this now....

[chookie]

40. I agree -- it's a trial balloon

We've known each other for some time, and discussed many things, so you might recall that I have been agonizing for years on whether the disasters of the Bush administration were the result of incompetence and contrariness (a strong case can be made for this view) or if everything was going exactly according to plan.

They *rushed* to war with Iraq. They made it seem an urgent mission. People were made to believe that it was because they wanted to protect the American people against future attacks, which were apparently imminent -- and that was why it was so urgent.

I think it was "urgent" because they *had* to get us into that mess ASAP, because they knew once they got us in, it was going to be very very very hard to get out again. I think they even planned for the regional explosion of violence (i.e. Bush's code word for it is "bringing the battle to the terrorists.").

Note how Bush is raising the Ghost of Viet Nam to serve his purposes. "They will not shake our resolve." The NeoCon/flying monkey idea seems to be that not only was not utterly destroying Viet Nam was a mistake, which made the world think Americans were "pussies", and that this is one of the factors CAUSING the so-called War on Terror. The same people say that we were "pussies" not to have fought the Soviets and Chinese in an all-out war, and to have tolerated the existance of Communism.

Bush loves to say that Kerry "flipflops" -- alas, Bush just flops. He is absolutely DELIGHTED to be the guy who asks the last man to die in Iraq over a mistake, and a lie.

Crikes!! Is it really "resolve" to get involved in a war which is just going to make things worse?

Hell -- if *I* was Commander in Chief -- I would step up surveillance of terrorist groups, and "swat flies" and take out training camps. I would be prepared to do so for decades -- because those sons of bitches are rapidly running out of oil anyway, and are going to be irrelevant as players in less than 50 years. I'd take the long view on this one, and fight it as we did the "Communist Menace" during the Cold War.

[Roon]

56. Already had a neocon tell me...

LIHOP...it had to be done.

Couldn't believe my ears.

[arcane1]

57. yep, won't be the last time, either

if Bush wins in November, expect to hear Dems called unpatriotic for whining and weepeing so much over the 'collateral damage' in NYC. If we loved America we would be proud of that sacrifice. After all, we lost more than that during Vietnam, right?

:puke:

[Mountainman]

8. Rohrabacher is talking out of his ass IMHO.

I think he was making that answer up as he was talking. He is a whore for Bush.

[Guaranteed]

10. Well...I have to say it does all fit together

very nicely. Unfortunately, I think we need more evidence.

But this point:

However, it seems to be the fact that Bush *entered* the WH not with a "humble foreign policy", but with an ambitious plan to completely redraw the Middle East by use of US military force, to topple their government and replace them with "democracies", and that this was his "ultimate" solution for eradicating terrorism.

of yours is certainly duely noted.

[BOSSHOG]

15. More evidence? - the cheney energy task force

bush reason for going to war in Iraq. Bush can prove me wrong by releasing the task force report, every page of it.

[Guaranteed]

26. I'm totally convinced that the Bush administration was hell-bent

on invading Iraq. That doesn't mean that they let 9/11 happen, though. We need more evidence of actual, willful neglect...something like a memo saying "I hear there's going to be a terrorist attack, but let's let it happen so that we can invade Iraq."

[Old and In the Way]

35. Would the directive to take guns out of the cockpit, after the 8/6

PDB qualify as a pro-active action to insure 9/11 success?

[chookie]

45. Condi brought this up today

For her and His Chimperial Highness to be a little bit more concerned about warnings that something big was about to strike the US during the Summer of Threat couldn't have stopped the Sept 11 attacks BUT she did offer that IF ONLY Clinton had fortified the cockpits of aircraft during *his* administration, THAT might have prevented the attacks. (I am not making this up)

How she reconciles this with her assertion that she had absolutely no idea that Al Qaeda would EVER use aircraft to attack the US -- um, if this was so OBSCURE a threat, Condi, then why does you say Clinton SHOULD have known to take such a measure?

Conclusion: Condi is in a classic dilemma. She does not want to "embarrass" her boss (which would result in his impeachment and prosecution for war crimes) yet she does not want to perjure herself, which will cause her to spend time in the pokey.

[scarletwoman]

49. Oh, that tears it! (fortifying the cockpits)

Here's what REALLY happened:

FAA: A Failure On Aviation Security
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20011008/avi_view.htm
Aviation Week & Space Technology:
October 8, 2001

One battlefield in America's war on terrorism surely will include White House or congressional commissions, to make recommendations on how to improve civil aviation security. (my note: such optimism -- little did the author know how the bush* maladministration would do all it could to forestall any sort of commission!)

It won't be the first time. The last time such a commission was charged with that function was after the TWA Flight 800 tragedy in which 230 passengers and crewmembers were killed on July 17, 1996.

Reviewing the history of the recommendations made by that commission is both timely and instructive. Had those recommendations been implemented within the spirit and intent of the commission, the plans to attack on Sept. 11 might have been detected well before they occurred.

Immediately following the explosion on board TWA 800, President Bill Clinton chartered, and Vice President Al Gore chaired, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The President directed the commission to focus first on the issue of security because early indications (later ruled out) pointed to a terrorist's bomb as the cause.

We delivered our final report to the President on Feb. 12, 1997. Most of our recommendations dealt directly with airport and airline security. The President accepted all of the recommendations and directed the FAA, through the Transportation secretary, to implement them. Few of the recommendations have been fully put into practice. The remainder have either not been implemented at all, or only partially, and with no significant impact on security.

Got that part? President Clinton ACCEPTED all the recommendations and DIRECTED the FAA to implement them! So what did the FAA do? Read on:

In sum, the FAA has failed to carry out the major recommendations regarding aviation security. Our commission required "that the Secretary of Transportation report publicly each year on the implementation status of these recommendations." There has been no report since 1998. The Transportation Dept.'s inspector general has repeatedly documented the FAA's inadequacies in background checks and airport access controls. To be sure, this failure to perform cannot be laid entirely on the doorstep of the FAA. After all, the FAA has bosses and overseers in the executive and legislative branches, Transportation secretary and oversight committees of Congress. Clearly, there have been lapses in their functions as well. But the major failure is one of leadership at all levels of the FAA.

As usual, the bushies LIE! President Clinton commissioned an aviation security report, accepted its recommendations, and directed the FAA to implement them.

So why haven't heads rolled at the FAA? I guess it's just so much more convenient to blame Clinton... :mad:

sw

[chookie]

51. So much more convenient to politicize this

Thanks for the fascinating reminder.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Sept 11 2001 -- which again, is up against a lot of competition -- is that the Bush administration has politicized this.

Maybe it wasn't LIHOP. Maybe they're just incompetent. Or maybe they really really really wanted to start a major regional war in the Middle East and needed an excuse.

But all these outright lies, and this BULLSHIT!

Is Bush so terrified, so insecure, that he cannot bring himself to admit the teensy-weensiest boo-boo that *might* have contributed to the horrific events of that day? It was so credible, so human, so utterly honest for Richard Clarke to go in front of the families of the destroyed, and say he was sorry for his role in screwing up. The smirkistas love to talk about what a tough guy he is -- but apparently too scared to face the families.

Conclusion -- if he'd simply have messed up on his watch, I think the bastard would admit it. Anyone who would have messed up (I am thinking of a stronger word here of course) with real guts would have admitted as such. However -- someone who has a lot to hide, or who had a secret agenda, would NOT ever admit to having made an error or misjudgement.

The only thing they seem to be admitting to is that they did not invade Iraq and start a regional war in the Middle East earlier -- and I bet they blame this on Clinton too (the transition between adminstrations was too short because of the Sore Loserman recount).

This is revolting. This is venality and evil on a level I have not seen in my lifetime.

[tom_paine]

55. "This is venality and evil on a level I have not seen in my lifetime."

Yes. It is the venality and evil of a "kinder and gentler" Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

It is the venality of Ferdinand Marcos, Papa Doc Duvalier, the Shah of Iran and SAVAK, Murderous Bushveik Toady Pinochet, and dozens of others we read about and thought to ourselves, "Thank God we don;t live there!"

Of course, now we ALL (except the ex-pats) LIVE THERE. THERE IS HERE, and the transformation has still only just begun.

The Busheviks make me :puke: sick in ways I only ever felt before toward Tyrants of Third World Nations.

Now WE are a Third-World Nation, albeit a very rich one, ruled by a Caligulan Tyrant.

[scarletwoman]

63. There's so much MORE that the general public isn't aware of!

And it just makes me wanna tear my hair out that SOMEONE hasn't stepped up and laid it all out there in a big public way!

Like how the Hart-Rudman report was immediately shelved by the bushies.
Read about THAT one here:

WHAT WE KNEW: WARNING GIVEN...STORY MISSED
How a Report on Terrorism Flew Under the Radar
http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/01/6/evans.asp

We were warned. Some of the best minds in the United States attempted to alert the nation that, without a new emphasis on homeland security and attention to terrorism, "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers" as the result of terrorist attacks. The first warning came in September 1999, when former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, co-chairs, used those words in the first of three documents from an entity called the United States Commission on National Security, created during a rare moment of agreement between President Clinton and House speaker Newt Gingrich. Then, seven months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the commission re-emphasized its warning, this time with a detailed agenda for action to make America safer from terrorism. The report was scary but it was also constructive and authoritative. And it is fair to say that most Americans never heard of it until after the attacks.

What happened?

On January 31, Hart and Rudman looked with satisfaction on the television cameras and print reporters assembled in the Mansfield Room of the United States Senate. They were there to present the commission's final report of 150 pages. It was called Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, and was signed by their twelve fellow commissioners, who represented the kind of blue-ribbon braintrust Washington is so good at putting together (see box). Over a three-year period, the wise men had visited twenty-five countries and consulted more than a hundred experts. Hart and Rudman had as their executive director the one-time fighter pilot, Charles (Chuck) Boyd, the only graduate of the Hanoi Hilton to make four-star general. They and their staffs went to great lengths to alert the press in advance to the gravity of the commissioners' findings.

"Hell," says Rudman, "it was the first comprehensive rethinking of national security since Harry Truman in 1947." The conclusions were startling: "States, terrorists, and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction, and some will use them. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers." The commission also explored many of the underlying factors. Hart told me: "We got a terrific sense of the resentment building against the U.S. as a bully, which alarmed us."

<snip>

None of the commissioners suggests that headlines or informed comment about their report would have forestalled September 11. But national planning could have been six months ahead, sparing us much of the public health chaos over anthrax. If Hart-Rudman had got the national attention it deserved, the administration almost surely would have moved sooner. There is a keen sense of frustration among the fourteen commissioners that the marriage of two inertias -- one in the serious press, the other in the administration -- delayed the taking of action. "We lost momentum," says Rudman.

Actually, Hart-Rudman did gain impressive backing in Congress from the top Republican members of the national security set, at a time when they controlled the Senate, and vigorous support from Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker. On May 5, the administration announced that, rather than adopting Hart-Rudman, it was forming its own committee headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was expected to report in October. "The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring," says Gingrich.

Or how about the fact that the FBI's most expert counterterrorism official, John O'Neill, was DENIED a visa to go to Yemen to investigate the U.S.S. Cole bombing?

Or the fact that agents were told to "back off Bin Laden" -- see:
Bush took FBI agents off Laden family trail

And what about those "put options"? Why did that line of inquiry go totally dead within days of this news coming out?

I've been MIHOP since the day of 9/11 itself. And NOTHING I've come across since that day has changed my mind.

sw

[CaptainClark23]

39. Energy TF report

I agree with your assessment, but I believe it goes further than simple greed for profit. In that room were those who have the real combined data on Peak Oil. That was the driving sense of urgency, grab the wells now, we don't have time to fuck around. That's also why there was such detailed info on Iraq's petroleum structure. They needed to get an idea of how much was there and how fast it could be pumped while conventional, cost-effective pumping was still an option. Today's NYTimes reports front page questions on the continued viability of Oman's fields. Gas and oil price discussions are becoming a daily news segment.

Cheney's Energy TF, in my estimation, came down to brass tacks about the situation. And that's why they will never let the details on that little shindig go. The American people would lose it, and they (Cheney, et al) in turn would lose what power and control they now possess.

Its desperation time.

[Old and In the Way]

64. Too late to plead "national interest", IMHO.

Back in 1979, they happily cut a deal with theIranian's to hold US hostages at the embassey to win the election. Then they took down the Carter initiatives to conserve oil and develop alternative resources. Bush negotiated with the Sauds to open the spigots and delver cheap oil. They lined their pockets with oil revenue and helped to rev up the economy on this cheap oil....but this was to our long term detriment. By derailing the alternative/renewable/conservation strategies of Carter, they set us up for warsof occupation and spilling American blood to keep our addiction going. But even this is a dead end, because eventually there won't be any cheap oil to pump and we wouldn't have made the national sacrifice to develop alternative energy sources.

So the fault still lies with the Bush family who made their bed with the House of Saud, furthering their personal polityical/economic agenda at the expense of our long term security.

After 25 years, "Morning in America" is giving way to "Evening in America". Fitting that what was started by father is being finished by Dimson.

[chimpymustgo]

13. Excellent analysis. Except it points to MIHOP.

With a planet-altering plan - WWIII - why would these maniacs leave anything to chance?

This is their plan, implemented by their people, engendering their desired results.

More certain than ever: MIHOP.

[KamaAina]

16. He's reading straight from the PNAC playbook

The infamous PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses", dated September 2000, says the same thing in black and white:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

(page 63 of the PDF document)

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.

Remember, this came out a year before 9/11. Either these PNACers are awfully good prognosticators, in which case they should immediately hop on the next plane to Vegas, or -- you get the idea. :scared:

[Eurobabe]

46. yes and if you read John Dean Worse Than Watergate

LIHOP provides cover for entire NeoCon agenda. He lays it out quite nicely on page 103.

I trust Cheney even LESS after reading this book, right now I am almost inclined to think Unka Dick shoved Chimpy off to Texas so as to not worry his purty little brain over such trivia as Bin Laden determined to attack 'Murica.

[x-g.o.p.er]

18. If there is such a thing as LIHOP...

and for whatever reason Bush and co. wanted to choreograph such a disaster, and they needed to keep it secret so that their nefarious plans for global oil domination could be put in place...

why the hell would they run their pieholes about it to Dana-frickin'- Rohrbacher?

Do you see why this is considered preposterous by most people? If you launch a devious conspiracy such as LIHOP/MIHOP claims, only a small cabal of lunatics know about it... TO KEEP IT SECRET.

Not a diahrrea of the mouth politician like Dana Rohrbacher.

[mouse7]

58. Not true. All it required was Cheney and Rumsfeld

"No more swatting flies" only requires Cheney to give the order to Rumsfeld (we are in agreement that Bush is head of state, and Cheney is the read head of government... Bush is just the "Queen" of America). As long as there is an order that manages to keep fighter planes confused and on the ground, it comes off without a hitch.

[KissMyAsscroft]

22. You know....I have never bought into the whole LIHOP/MIHOP thing..

But I have to say...the more I read...the more it seems that this stuff does not fit together..

What Im starting to believe is LIHOP with people who wanted to invade Iraq interfering and preoccupying the president with bullshit so an attack would happen. I think they thought that it wouldn't kill that many people, but it would galanive America for a new war.

I think they thought it would be similar to the Cole bombings or something similar in scale...maube a few hundred dead....not 2 whole towers collapsing..

But the fact that the Pentagon was still smoking and Rumsfeld is already wanting to invade Iraq....

[maggrwaggr]

41. and just that day Rummy was talking about a "big event" coming

that would change everything

[Skittles]

24. hey Chookie!

thar you are! :hi:

[chookie]

32. Hi Skittles!

I'm always around, if not posting.

Skittles -- the beginning of the end of this debacle will be regime change in the US this year.

Bush is gambling that $200-300 million dollars, donated by people who benefitted most from his tax cuts, to buy the biggest and best PR campaign in history, is going to be able to sell his lies to the American people. I don't think he is going to succeed. but we need to be ready to all contingencies.

[Skittles]

34. being in Texas makes me very skeptical

we have to remember that f***wit Bush lost the LAST election.

[truthspeaker]

let's talk about Bush's plan:

from the OP
**************
Rohrabacher (R-CA) said that Bush did not wish to provide a piddling tit for tat response to terror attacks on the US, but instead pre-Sept 11 was working on a major plan to eliminate terrorism completely. This plan consisted on "taking out "a" Middle Eastern dictator (SH) and replacing him with a democracy. Establishing a democracy in Iraq would provide an "alternative" to the kind of state that Al Qaeda was promulgating." (I paraphrase what Rohrabacher said.)
**************

Is that not one of the stupidest plans you've ever heard?

[chookie]

30. Um, well I know I do, but....

this Plan seems to be what the (probably religiously deranged) Bush and his NeoCon masters and their supporters (Max Boot, Faux, the RW dittomonkeys) really really really believe is America's Mission for This Generation.

Look back to events in the Pentagon in November of 2001. Seems as though there were a LOT of people who thought "swatting flies" was the way to deal with free-floating terrorist groups -- and who vehemently disagreed with the PNAC Plan to remake the Middle East by use of military force and regime change. No one talks about this anymore, but there was a major re-ordering of personnel in the Pentagon by Rumsfeld, who replaced experienced military professionals who "couldn't think outside the box" with people who did. The Bushistas like to portray this war as enthusiastically supported by the military, when in fact a lot of very smart Pentagon people and experienced military leaders opposed their plans. A lot of them have spoken up already, and more will do so in the future, and things continue to deteriorate.

I may think it's stupid -- I may think it is not only a bad plan but is being unbelieveably incompetently executed -- but what is more important than my view is that this administration believes that this is their Mission, Their Destiny.

[Old and In the Way]

36. Should be easy to verify.

Condi should show the "comprehensive plan" that was being developed....somehow I bet that the this plan is tied into Cheney's secret energy taskforce meetings.

[GOPisEvil]

25. Lest we forget: Dana LOVED the Taliban!!!

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/03/01/cover-moxley.php

" says the Taliban are devout traditionalists—not terrorists or revolutionaries. He believes a Taliban takeover would be a positive development."

—Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November/December 1996 issue



Thanks to hedda_foil! :hi:

[chookie]

43. He's gotta lotta 'splainin' to so

n/t

Gee -- these bastards really have a lot of nerve, don't they?

They seem to be operating by the code suggested by Groucho Marx, "Who do you believe -- me, or you own eyes?"

Thanks for this VERY interesting link.

I think I'll send it to CNN as a followup to their interview with him today.

[Trajan]

67. I recall when this came out ....

Being a devout atheist, I recall how I believed the GOP and the Taliban were birds of a feather, so to speak ....

[KoKo]

28. Chookie! I believe exactly what you do. And I hope that those of us who

disagree with this policy will be able to stop it before the whole Middle East is our killing fields.

I would add that I think they knew it would be bad enough that they would have to restore the draft and felt they could let everything deteriorate until we Americans realized that the draft must be restored.

Seeing how they are stonewalling about investigations while allowing terrible blunders to incite the Iraqi's has convinced me that we are just living through the PNAC plan. That we have little hope of stopping this and quite frankly it's more frightening when one knows that than if one thinks they are just incompetent.

If we don't stop them soon, before the election, I fear that having a Democrat in will do little to stop this freight train rolling through the ME casting destruction in its wake.

We don't have the money for all this. That may be the only thing which saves us, but even then, I'm not sure that can't be handled in some way.

:scared:

[chookie]

50. The rush to war

Remember how they were in such a hurry to get into Iraq? They (mis)lead the American people into thinking they were doing so to prevent future attacks, apparently from Iraq.

They *had* to hurry in, while Americans were still reeling after Sept 11. They knew that once they got in, it was going to be extremely difficult to get out, and that we would be stuck there, and in the region, for a long long time -- and that was how the PNAC plan was initiated, and set to spread into Iran, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere next.

I have been puzzled over their inaction over Israel in the summer of 2001. I have come to the conclusion that they *intended* Israel to explode into horrific violence -- and that THAT was another LIHOP/MIHOP. The violence in Israel HAD to be linked to the violence against Americans in order to lay the groundwork for the regional conflict they had been planning for years, to eradicate terrorism by completely reshaping the Middle East by ousting the governments there by use of military force. *This* is what the "War on Terror" has morphed into.

[KoKo]

62. They were very clever in doing this...preying on patriotism and sorrow and

grief. Only those of us who knew what they did to Clinton (which Clinton did to himself) understood that after the "selection" we needed to be "VERY" vigilant.

And, this is what it's come down to. We who "knew" trying to find ways to convince those who were "hoodwinked," "led astray," whatever....to believe what we all were trying to tell them: "The Emperor Has No Clothes."

Sad...

[Nlighten1]

29. Could it really be coming apart?

It looks like the seams are starting to break. Has a branch on tree of evil become cancerous? Will the media and the right wing cut it off to save themselves?

[Rockholm]

31. Blame Clinton, Blame Clinton.....

God, can these asswipes stop with the Clinton mantra already? Their "answers" for everything are SO interchangable. Here are the Pukes words & phrases of choice when deflecting the REAL answers....
Clinton, 9-11, 233 days, Saddam, Taliban, thugs, bad guys, Patriot Act, Clarke (God, you would think that I would know them all by now) Any others, folks?

[chookie]

42. Rohrabacher also used the "Blame Clinton" theme today

Thanks for the reminder.

He also said that we all need to remember that the transition period between Clinton and His Chimperial Highness had been shortened because of Sore Loserman refusing the hand over the election to Bush because he was such a crybaby about having a majority of votes in that state, and so miffy about fraud in that election. "If only" George W and Condi had had those few precious weeks -- *that* could have prevented 9/11. Mind you, acting on the "chatter" and general warnings that heavy shitting was heading our way, would not have prevented Sept 11. Sounds logical to me.

I predicted that the smirkistas would use that excuse for anything that went wrong in their administration -- and sure enough, they are.

But the big thing is to get out of his interview today in support of NeoCondi is-- Rohrabacher sent up a trial balloon, admitting that George W was working on a plan that involved regime change in the Middle East and the establishment of democracies there, which would serve as alternatives to the ideology promoted by Al Qaeda. No more swatting flies. He intended to completely reshape the Middle East by use of military force. Iraq isn't going badly, like those short-sighted appeasers like John Kerry would have you believe -- but is actually succeedly brilliantly as His Chimperial Highness had planned. Each time violence spreads in the Middle East, it only confirms that Bush was right, and that he is not causing violence to engulf the entire region of the Middle East, but is driving the snakes out of their holes.

Ever since Clarke's book came out, they have been inching towards this latest version of Bush's Divine Mission. They are going to see how the American people take to the PNAC plan being made public.

Ha ha -- you have to laugh when Condi and Rummy say that bin Laden had written that he intended to destroy the US, and that Clinton was a silly pussy not to take him at his word -- but yet we're not supposed to take the words of Perle, and Wolfowitz, and PNAC at THEIR word for planning a total reshaping of the Middle East by use of military force?

[KoKo]

44. Some more verification for you "Chookie" from Sid Blumenthal! Quote:

What the 9/11 commission won't ask
The inside story of how Condoleezza Rice destroyed the Middle East peace process.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/04/08/condi/index.html

(SNIP)
n January 2002, Rice launched a serious effort to restart the Middle East peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians. She hired Flynt Leverett, who was a professional foreign service officer on the policy planning staff of the State Department, as director of the initiative on the National Security Council. Rice told him and those assigned to work with him that she understood that the absence of peace process was hurting the war on terrorism and that Leverett should propose any and all measures he thought necessary, regardless of potential political controversy. "She told us we should go for the long bomb, using a football metaphor," Leverett recalled to me.







Leverett then developed a plan on final status dealing with security, Palestinian political reform and Jerusalem; the core of the plan was essentially the same as President Clinton's ultimate proposal. Rice rejected it; her own mandated team had come up with something she judged as "unworkable" and politically untenable for Bush, who would have been forced to confront Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to enact it.

On April 4, Bush delivered a speech calling for a "two state" solution, but without any details, and sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region. Leverett traveled with him. Powell gained agreement for the basic outline of the original plan, but just as he was to announce his breakthrough in a press conference Rice intervened, instructing him not to discuss any political process and that the whole burden of accountability must be put on the Palestinians and none on the Israelis. In private, Powell seethed but did not fight Rice.

Rice had crumbled in the face of internal political opposition from the neoconservative armada. "In the end, the neoconservatives in the Pentagon and the vice president's office, plus Karl Rove's political shop, prevailed," Leverett told me. The American Jewish lobby was less a factor than the religious right of Christian Zionists, an electoral bloc in Bush's base, represented internally by Rove. Rove emerges not simply as a fixer or tactician, but as a foreign policy decision-maker aligned with the neocons by means of this connection.

Undeterred, Leverett turned to work on what became known as "the road map." On July 31, Jordanian foreign minister Marwan Muasher met with Rice to urge support for the road map. "Condi says, no, all you get is a speech, no plan," said Leverett. The next day King Abdullah came to see the president, bringing his foreign minister with him to the Oval Office. First, Abdullah made the argument for the road map and then asked Muasher to repeat what he had told Rice. "Condi had told the president nothing of her conversation," said Leverett, who was present. Bush instantly remarked to him about Abdullah's proposal: "Good idea, let's see what we can do on that." Leverett says, "That was the origin of the road map."

[chookie]

47. What about pre-Sept 11 2001?

Thank you VERY much for this article -- it will shed much light on issues I have been pondering for years.

However, what about the Bush policy in Israel/Palestine during 2001, prior to Sept 11? All hell broke loose there in some of the worst violence ever there (and that's against some very stuff competition), and the smirkistas did nothing. I remember reading in WP that an "unnamed source" said that it was time that the Israelis and Palestinians started acting like grownups and take responsbility for the mess they were in. I thought that was a bizarre statement then, and still do, and wonder who the hell said it. That should be easy to figure out, because who uses speech patterns like the words "grownups" to describe how heads of states should behave?

Additionally, during the 2000 campaign, George W used to say things like he was going to allow the Israeli/Palestinian peace process to take place on its own time table, and that he was not going to set a time table for them. He was curiously cool towards Israel in the 2000 campaign, which totally baffled me at the time, as it was so inconsistent with what I knew his view was. It was as if, I thought at the time, his core supporters (aka "wackos") KNEW that he had to say stuff like this in order to try to be as elected as best as he could, and since the Jews were going to be voting for Lieberman anyway, he may as well pretend to be on the side of the Arabs, in order to trick Arab-Americans to support him. I was RIGHT! Kevin Phillips says as much in his recent book about the Bush "dynasty" -- that George W had in fact a "wink wink nudge nudge" understanding with the wackos that they did not have to be alarmed by this sort of talk, because it was just bullshit.

[KoKo]

61. I wish I knew the answer! Maybe some folks who do the I/P Forum on DU

can answer it. It's definitely the PNAC change of foreign policy which goes against what was for decades a policy which emphasized peace in the ME and negotiated with Isreal and Palestine. :shrug: Carter and Clinton were desperate to bring peace but were thwarted.

I'm for their style not this. But the factions in the Right Wing seem to have decided that since that didn't work...let's try something else.

PNAC! sigh...

[chookie]

68. What about terrorism ending in Ireland?

It seems very ironic that Bush and our Defence Dept is taking advice from Israel regarding how to carry out a "successful occupation." They are actually using Israelis to train American soldiers on tactics they should employ in Iraq.

That's stupid, at best, on more than one level. While there are a lot of ways in which the Israelis could aid the US (for example advice on counter-terrorism measures for domestic ports), given the current fiasco in Israel/Palestine, they would not be high on my list on sources I would choose to help me "solve" Iraq. Bizarre.

But what about Ireland? It was not too long ago that terrorists were wreaking havoc on each side over a long-standing bitter division over matters of land and religion.

Seems that Clinton and Blair were part of getting the two warring parties to make a political solution to peace after years of terrible trouble, which has held for about 5 years now. There have got to very valuable lessons for solving terrorism in a post-colonial situation that can be taken from the situation of Northern Ireland, and the people who were part of it would be the kind of folks I would be talking to. You know, the kind that succeed in things. Asking Israel for advice about how to manage our occupation successfully is like asking a morbidly obese person for tips on how to lose weight. Sure -- they'll probably have LOTS of ideas, but why are they still fat?

Anyway -- it's best if the PNAC program is out in the open. The Neoconservatives feel very passionately that it is the only way to succeed against threats to the US. Many people who opposed the war, like myself, feel that their premise that terrorism is a problem that can be solved by reshaped the Middle East by use of military forces is a false one, and that their actions will only make the problem worse.

I say let this choice be put before the American people, and let them decide. Let this "cunning plan" for an ultimate solution to terrorism be brought in front of the Congress. If Bush is in fact de facto committing us to a "generational challenge" (aka "quagmire" or "another Viet Nam") -- then let him use his great leadership abilities to win over the Congress and let them make a true declaration of war.

Bush's fear is that the American people don't have the "vision" (i.e. aren't insane enough) for his solution for the threats coming out of the Middle East. As soon as it gets out that we are mired in this for a very long time and that it is going to be very hard and very bloody -- which they are just now beginning to be more open about (i.e. "generational challenge"), they are going to kick his lying monkey ass back to Crawford TX quicker than you can say "mea culpa."

[leesa]

48. It was a dumb-ass plan Rohrabacher. But exactly what I would expect

from belligerent Neanderthals

[tom_paine]

59. Please don't insult Neanderthals that way!

Modern anthropologists, as I understand, not think the Neanderthals had enlarged sensory occipital lobes and were quite gentle.

Which is why our ancestors killed them all. Evolution, you know.

At any rate, modern theory suggests that the Neanderthals were actually very un-Bushevik.

[Jose Diablo]

53. I doubt *Bush could have won the primary

let alone the general election if he had told the voters this was their plan for USA's relations with other governments.

These guys have got to go, but the problem is both Dem and Rep see this as what USA should do. That Iraq War vote in congress makes sense now as to why the Dem's went along. Most Dems in DC have the same agenda. Our representatives just give lip service to being against war.

The election in November won't make any difference at all as far as changing our policy.

We been had.

[mouse7]

60. It finally has a name... "No More Swatting Flies." That's LIHOP.

This was definitely THE trial balloon.

[screembloodymurder]

65. I think you're right, chookie,

it sounds like a justification to me. They let it happen on purpose because they believe it had to be done. Good God, what have these zealots done?

[kentuck]

69. Starting to sound like HIHOP - Hoping it happens on Purpose...

He ignored the Israeli/Palestinian problem on purpose, and he threatened the Taliban, as reported by the French authors of a book, and he more or less dared everyone to step across his line in the Arabian sand. The al Qaeda took him up on his dare. They slapped the chip off his shoulder and the mighty, invincible of the #1 superpower in the world was made to look a seventh grade bully that just got the crap kicked out of him by a first grader....It seems he was "hoping" for something to happen so he could go into Iraq and complete the PNAC mission...

[never cry wolf]

70. Kick

I missed this yesterday but need to head to lunch. Will read after.